Israel's Airstrikes: A Product of Opportunism

Back on December 19, the Palestinian group Hamas formally ended its six-month ceasefire with Israel. The move was widely anticipated, and many regional analysts suggested that Hamas had simply used the period of calm to stockpile weapons and train fighters. By most accounts, the recent ceasefire was no stepping stone to peace, but rather a brief respite before intensified fighting.

There was little surprise, then, when Palestinian militants quickly began firing Qassam rockets and mortar shells from the Gaza strip into southern Israeli towns like Sderot. The reaction of the Israeli government, however, has shocked many in the international community. Over the past weekend, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out a series of aggressive air strikes that have killed more than 300 Palestinians, and military officials appear to be planning an extensive ground campaign. On Sunday, the Israeli government just approved an emergency measure to call up some 7,000 reservists to assist a broadening operation.

As with any asymmetrical conflict, there have been an alarming number of civilian casualties as a result of the IDF attacks. The air strikes have hit the Islamic University in Gaza, a Hamas-owned television station, and a local mosque which Israelis claimed was being used to house terrorists. As military action continues, the sprawling collateral damage affects homes and neighborhoods throughout the Hamas-controlled territory.

There are basically three explanations for the current Israeli operations in Gaza. First, the government in Jerusalem is struggling with its own internal turmoil and facing elections in February. In September Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned in the face of corruption charges, but he still remains in office as the interim minister until elections. A slew of well-known candidates is vying for the top job, and the current hostilities in Gaza are sure to become a major part of the campaign.

The low-level violence coming out of Gaza (even during the ceasefire) has continually outraged Israelis living in border towns. The incessant air raid sirens that scream out when rockets are approaching have caused many citizens to question their government's recent restraint. For the ruling Kadima party, a successful military operation against Hamas would serve as a bulwark against the hawkish criticisms of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (a political rival who is running for PM).

Other analysts point to the long shadow of Israel's 2006 war againt Hezbollah. In that conflict, the Israeli military conducted a sloppy 34-day assault on southern Lebanon. Despite attacks by sea, land, and air, the conflict revealed Hezbollah's sophisticated operational organization and brought the Iranian-backed Islamist group massive prestige in the Arab world. For many Israelis, the Hezbollah war had frayed the notion of military deterrence and such weakness had emboldened militants in Gaza. As such, the current strikes against Hamas are obviously designed to redress recent charicatures of Israel as a paper tiger.

Third, the global political climate seems to have provided Israel with an attractive opportunity to attack Hamas. The United States, which is often considered a moderating force in such conflicts, is ill-equipped to handle a diplomatic crisis. President George Bush has little power to broker any substantive deal during his remaining weeks, and President-elect Barack Obama is keenly focused on the American economy. The European Union, another diplomatic heavyweight, is days away from a presidential rotation. On December 31, French President Nicolas Sarkozy will give way to Czech President Vaclav Klaus (an admitted euro-skeptic). With all due respect, it's hard to imagine a strong, unified voice coming from the EU any time soon.

As a result, Israel may well continue bombing against the uneasy backdrop of strongly-worded statements from various global leaders. Mr Olmert could see this conflict as an opportunity to salvage his fractured legacy and bring substantive changes to the Gaza strip. Curiously, Mr Olmert has explicitly denied any attempts to force Hamas from power. Some analysts have suggested that the alternative, a functionally lawless and hostile territory at Israel's doorstep, would be measurably worse.

Still, the problem remains: Hamas is a much better combat party. After seizing control of Gaza in 2007, the party has been unable to provide for its citizens (albeit, there are obvious external forces at play) and alienated foreign supporters. In contrast, the militant wing of Hamas, the al-Qassam Brigades, has always thrived on its violent conflicts with Israel and will almost assuredly gain recruits as a result of the current hostilities. Just as Israel's political machine is looking to score points with the air strikes in Gaza, so too will Hamas be able to distract observers from its governing failures. Instead, many in the Arab world will focus on the need for Hamas to stand up and protect Palestinians in Gaza.

It seems unlikely that Israel would continue this fighting for more than a month, as it did in 2006. For one, economic realities may soon hamstring military options. Israel's currency, the shekel, weakened against the dollar this morning and the Bank of Israel has just issued a rather gloomy economic forecast. Still, the coming days and weeks could be very bloody and will surely leave Gaza in tatters.

It's hard to see how anyone will bring real change to the region, but it may, at some point, be Mr Obama's job to try.